å May 2017

In this work Parisi’s initial question is asking how does the cast type of male and female normalize heterosexuality as the meaning of human. Since the history of man it has been clearly understood what makes a man and woman different biologically but this piece examines how because of these cast into male and female dictate a hierarchy in which men are over women. She talks about how the coding into masculine and feminine is generated right after birth it is even included in all of language. Hetero-sexism  is what has been considered normal by western culture. The struct of the house in which the man is the head of the house hold the woman is to serve the man and to take care of the house and the children while the man is the provider for the family. She talks about how heterosexuality and the family recreate the human rights discourse in which the public and private spheres are naturalized and the state is supposed to be bother protector and violator of rights. We have seen this in other works are well. Her reasoning for the belief that heterosexism is a more precise way of analyzing to relationship of gender difference and human rights is already fore stated. She puts a big emphasis on the effect of the normalizing of even the idea. It has been written that the man is the head, adopted by not just the western cultures but we can clearly see how it has been adopted by the eastern cultures as well , accepted by the woman and understood by society. The characteristics that define masculine and feminine has been almost set in stone that that any deviation causes concern and puts the normalization factor at risk of forever being tainted. Women have been told of there role pre put in a sphere a told this is how life must be at the expense of the safety of women. You as a woman are to be safer in the house not in the public eye and because it was adopted and accepted and not question or questioned but never out loud and never openly objected to, this is why it is so easy for heterosexuality to be the defining factor in how things should be. When someone tells you something who is supposed to have the best interest at heart you don’t think to question it. The spheres were created by men who control the state so is it any question women would believe that this is the way things have to be.

Ruth Gilmore argues that expanding the prison population should be connected to a restructuring of the state. The crisis that Gilmore joins to the prison population in the United States is that the more people that are imprisoned the more women and children are without husbands and fathers.  There is a social crisis because a lot of African American men are the ones that’s mostly going to prison and is making the social structure of things unbalanced.  It seems like prison is this so call ” fix” for all of the chaos in society. “Until the 1960’s virtually all riots in the United States were battles instigated by white people against people of color, or by public or private police (including militia and vigilantes, also normally white) against organizing workers of all races. ( Gilmore 175) A good question was brought up in the test, “if crime rates peaked before the proliferation of new laws and new cages, what work does prison do”? and the test is right if crime rates were decreasing what was the point of having all these prisons being made? The test explains that the reason for this prison expansion were related to racism, racism especially towards blacks.  This whole prison system treated the different races unjustly and the black were the ones getting the shorter end of the stick.

This prison expansion was a way to put a end to the socio-economic problems which of course was created by the state, it was not done to help the people of society but more to help the people in the state. “the state has used its enormous capacity to raise money, buy land and build and staff prisons. It also makes new laws that guarantee incarceration for more and more kinds of offences, old and new.” (Gilmore 185)  Its like it was their solution (the state) to lock out someone and throw away the key so you wouldn’t have to deal with them again in society.  Over all there were many different explanations for the expansion of the prison population, drug epidemic, structural changes in employment opportunities,  however when the prison round ups began crime did indeed start to decrease, the public wanted a decrease in crime and they was in fact getting what they wanted.  Even though the crime was going down the state was still making more and more prison beds. It still comes into question, was prisons really the fix? or the cover up.

The conduction of Merry’s research along with her assistants in the article “Rights Talk and the Experience of Law: Implementing Women’s Human Rights to Protection from Violence” points out that women are placed in a domain where personal feelings of the law (executed by mainly men) are interfering with how women should be fully protected by their rights. It should not be a matter of the law having conditions, whether the victim should or not be defended, and as well the aggressor whether persecuted to full extent of the law or place it as a slap on the wrist.

The author terminated a close attention in how the representatives executing the law, view women, specifically in the situation as described as battered women, as being good victims and bad victims. Such informal titles used to categorize women across the board, clearly enables those who are applying the rules of the government to view the people in need of the law with a bias and subjectively. The method of which battered women have been victimized has established a number of individuals to collectively band in an effort to better support women of whom been victims of domestic violence. The activist not only place their supportive effort in educating them of what their legal right is as a woman, but also contribute in promoting enhancing skills where the couples can mutually find a common ground and acquire a preferred safe relationship.

Needless to say, the matter of the state, community and family members, interfere over-proportionately in private circumstantial affairs of couples’ relationship. A detriment set onto women, that if by having a situation that could lead them to a bad experience for enabling their right to defend themselves under the supposedly fair judicial law, then such act of pinpointing the problem becomes to women a much greater concern. That’s why it is important the emphasizes of such community outreach programs that can provided support in dire situations for women who have become victims of domestic violence. Not only should such programs that aide women in times of violent moments be viewed as supplemental establishments, but as necessary means of combating the privatized enclosed torture that women are encountering on a day by day basis. That the publicization of domestic violence towards women, be there in bringing out the issue at which women who also attribute in such cases in being unwilling participants by their male partner, lead to a transparency of awareness for all women and not selectively held as a mockery for women to just bear with it.

In the “Caliban and the witch” Siliva Frederici investigates the transition from federalism to capitalism. This had a major impact on women. Women could not afford living status because the land was being privatized. This transition to capitalism degraded women and it allowed the men to have full control.

Women didn’t work the land for long, they worked more inside the home. Women were a major part of producing children. They couldn’t abort any pregnancies or take any form of birth control, if they did then they would be committing a crime. Women worked to reproduce the next generation of workers. They forced to reproduce and take care of their husbands needs and to take care of the house. This in not really work it’s just wifely duties.

Women were not respected in the waged labor Felid because they were denied entrance. The money that she did make was not enough for her to survive off of. This led women to the lower class. This made women vulnerable and defendant on men. They were seen as some sort of breeding machine.

As Lughod (2002) analyzes, world events led to the marginalization of Muslim women and upheaved a movement and concentrated on religion being ostracized and discriminated against. Previous to September 11^th, the majority of Americans were on amicable terms with the Middle East, despite several conflicts and the Persian Gulf war. However, thanks to the American tragedy, Americans began to gravitate and look at the religion as a whole, to pinpoint the exact “cause” of 9/11. The result was objection and judgement towards women who practiced Islam, without regards to their insistence and own opinions, which ironically, is just as violating as the assumption that Muslim men disregard their opinion.

A catalyst in this argument was Laura Bush, who wanted to support her husband and his war endeavors to Afghanistan. Understandably so, Laura wanted to discuss the culture of the nationality that reportedly killed Americans on the tragic day. Within her research, she perceived the women in the situation to being trapped within their homes, and believed Americans invading the territory could liberate housewives and other women from their second class citizenship (Lughod, 2002, 874). Though it can be understandable to think of a terrorist’s wife being in this position, the vast majority of Muslim women are given freedom, and their freedom entails with following their religious orders and text.

As discussed by Lughod, it is quite comical to think that the Taliban “invented” the burqa, when in reality, it is a custom in several of the stricter Islamic nations. For these particular sects, the burqa gives the woman the most modesty (Lughod, 2002, 876). Some might find this offensive, but the same can be said about the chastity of nuns in Roman Catholic culture. While some would assume American influence in extremist parts of the Middle East might loosen customs, it should also be realized that for many, this is a preferred method, though others see it otherwise.

Another interesting reference is how the modesty clauses of Muslim women have become “fashion trends”, though their reasoning is purely out of respect for their religion. While many Westernized people and culture might find a Muslim woman’s outfit trendy when it does not involve a burqa or hijab, the purpose of this outfit is still to appease Allah (Lughod, 2002, 878). In a sense, Western culture fetishizes Eastern cultures, but then disregards the contexts from the culture, resulting in cultural appropriation. Along with this, there is a superiority complex, though all religions have factions that commit the same offenses.

In Merry’s discussion with the subject matter, what is realized and noted is the relationship between a woman’s status and her willingness to defend/support the law. Unsurprisingly, this is dependent on the relationship the woman has had with the justice system and her own treatment during such cases. When a woman feels supported and defended in a case of domestic violence or battery, she is more willing to believe in rights and other self-identifying cues when she has been supported; however, when the opposite occurs, she will also abandon the matter (Merry, 2003, 347). When law matters are taken into account, the pendulum swings dramatically with however the woman is treated. For example, women are now reporting domestic violence in higher volumes, thanks to police and society’s encouragement for women to speak out (Merry, 2003, 344). Still, the cases are gathering stronger support from women, because women are feeling that support and the issues concerning law dictate the subjectivity of this sensitive subject.
Law enforcement, criminal justice and the lack of these activities reinforces how women feel on this matter. As mentioned previously, women’s reaction to the system is all relying on how the system treats them. How the law formulates an opinion is unique in the circumstance, considering it is subjective in nature. When women are forced to admit to the law of their current status, they are also going through various motions to “clear” their name. Women are the forced into the criminal justice system, and put through various motions and events to enact possible justice in their case; this includes reporting the crime, talking with the police, discussing the matter with others for the case, writing out statements, and testifying (Merry, 2003, 351). In these actions, women are given various identities, and when it is supported, they feel stronger in the situation. Likewise, if the women are dismissed (thanks to bias against women), they will have less trust in the law and consider all “social justice” to be injustice.
Women depend on the very system that can break or make their lives easier, which is a frightening thought on its own. Despite this, women still manage to faith solace and faith in many situations, if they are respected in the process. Like any other human being, it is expected to not respect authority figures when one is not helped or aided during a crisis or troublesome time. In this matter, women identify with the law, but the matter is unfortunately subjective.

In Human Rights Fifty Years on: A Reappraisal by Tony Evans, there is a piece in this work written by V. Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi titled “Are Women Human? It’s not an academic question.” In this piece V. Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi speak about heterosexism, androcentrism and its relationship to women’s rights and human rights. Heterosexism is defined as the “normal sexual orientation”, a sexual relationship between a man and a woman. Androcentrism is defined as main “focus or center on man.” In this piece feminist argue that men or part of humen rights and women are part of “other” rights, women are not seen as human, so they are under represented and devalued when it comes to Human rights. Both V. Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi feel differently from other feminist because, they feel human rights should be linked to heterosexism rather than focus on the relationship between the domination of men have with human rights. All throughout history men have dominated and/or been the center of focus when it comes to rights that are created and given and women have always been an after thought. Feminist today try to separate the men from the women when speaking of human rights. V. Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi speak of two spheres. There is the private/family sphere and the public/state sphere. The private sphere embodies women and children, the public sphere is designated for men. These spheres further divide men and women. Human rights were created by men for men, they do not address the rights of women. Human rights are not really the rights of women. These spheres further enforce the separation between men and women by keeping them apart. Too look at just women’s rights or the lack that there was of women’s rights we begin to see just how hidden their rights have become. Keeping them in a private/family sphere and/or realm separates them from the public and/or state. They were seen as property. Using heterosexisum allows women to be seen with men when addressing human rights because it connects them. Heterosexisum leads to reproduction, which leads to family. Family is a “natural gender binary.” It’s composed of two things and those two things are men and women. Just like most things heterosexisum is seen to have more privileges for men than women. The masculinity of men takes strong hold over the femininity of women leaving the two genders separated.

In “The Sexual Contract”, Carole Pateman discusses how women are excluded from the social contract. Pateman is not referring to contract law nor does she refer to property in the literal sense. Rather she refers to the social contract in which authority is granted to state and civil law and property in the sense of personhood. Meaning, the system in which we surrender some natural rights in order to live and participate in a civil society and to have our political rights protected. From the social contract, we have social relationships, including the relationship between husband and wife (the marriage contract) and employer and employee (the employment contract). We are taught that these freedoms and protections are universal in a civil society, however due to society’s patriarchal structure, women are excluded.

When Pateman refers to patriarchy, she is not referring to the literal definition of paternal rule. Rather, she refers to society where women are subordinate to men not as fathers and husbands but simply due to the fact that men are men. In the patriarchal society, men have the freedom to move between the private and public sphere freely, to fully engage in the social contract, the marriage contract, the employment contract, the prostitution contract. Women are not. They are largely relegated to the private sphere, which is viewed as apolitical. As a result, their rights, particularly in such contracts as the marriage contract, are almost nonexistent. This results in further subjugation and a furthering of a patriarchal society.

While the public sphere is the only sphere as existing in a political sense, the sphere which benefits from the civil law, freedom, and equality brought about through the social contract, the public sphere and the private sphere cannot exist without one another. Just as ‘natural’ and ‘civil’ depend on one another for their existence, yet remain in opposition to one another, so do the private and public sphere. Because women exist in the private sphere rather than the public sphere, they are excluded from the social contract. However, they are not (and cannot) be excluded from the sexual contract. They are not equals in the sexual contract though. Their exclusion from the social contract results in a subordinate position within the sexual contract. To maintain this separation and subjugation, the public/civil sphere is viewed through a masculine lens, while the private/natural sphere is viewed through a feminine lens. Again, this furthers patriarchal rule and leaves women existing in a space that both is and is not political, enforcing subjugation and oppression.

Lila Abulughod argues that discussion on humanitarianism concerned with or seeking to promote human welfare and human rights in the 21st century rely in some way on constructions of Muslim women. The building of  veiled women  was forced upon the Muslim women.  Many saw this veiling as a symbol of freedom.  The veil were suppose to protect these women from being harasses by men, the veil was a symbol signaling to men that women who wore the veil came from a home that could never be dishonored. The burqa or this veil also represented women as modest and respectable.  The veil was a reflection of women  being associated with family and home.   Women who wear this veil also showed that a sense of belonging to a certain community .   This desire for freedom and liberation, there were many feminists that felt like they needed to save afgan women from the Taliban , so that they can have enough rights of having enough to eat, having homes for their families in where they can live and thrive, having ways to make decent livings so that they children can grow in a  decent community.   ” What does freedom mean if we accept the fundamental premise that humans are social beings, always raised in certain social and historical contexts and belonging to particular communities that shape their desires and understanding of the world ? (pg.786) Based on the  constructions of Muslim women , ” could we not leave veils and vocations of saving others behind and instead train our  sights on ways to make the world a more just place? (Lughod 798)  veiled Muslim women came off as being oppressed by the people who made them wear these veils this can be compared to the other parts in the world, we are part of tat world that can be oppressed.  Like the article states ” we do not stand outside the world looking out over this sea of poor benighted people , living under the shadow or veil or oppressive cultures, we are part of that world. (Lughod 789)  This part  is saying that we may not need to be wearing a veil or burqua to see that we ae being oppressed, by other things that are going on in our communities .  ” A more productive approach, it seems to me , is to ask how we might contribute to making the world a more just place.” ( Lughod 789)